On Tuesday 03 July 2007 01:44, Dave Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 01:22:47AM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > > > whelp, it seems that the reason for this patch is this: > > > > #define DBG() > > > > if(...) > > DBG(); > > next_c_statement > > > > which turns into > > if(...) ; > > next_c_statement > > > > But since there is an intervening ';', this code is still functionally > correct > > and a decent compiler will delete the test altogether, yes? > > Right, gcc does generate the correct code. > > > So is there some real problem here that I missed, > > or is this to make some code-checking tool that I don't have happy? > > Out of curiousity, I thought I'd see what was lurking in a -Wextra > build a while back. It's 99.9% noise, but a lot of it is trivial stuff > like this.
okay, i'll apply it to reduce the noise. thanks, -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
